I was talking with a good friend of mine roughly a year ago about what I had been reading in the manosphere. At the time I hadn’t started blogging yet and was primarily reading Roissy*. At one point in the conversation I asked him what it would look like if women lacked civilizational restraint. What would it look like if women went feral? After a significant pause, I re framed it and asked what it would look like if men weren’t properly civilized; What would they do if they followed only their base instincts? Pretty quickly he came up with a description which was roughly a cross between Animal House and Lord of the Flies, just as I was expecting. Then we went back to the same question for women, and he remained stumped. My guess is most of my readers could easily have the same conversation with the same results with most of your non manosphere involved friends.

I thought about this again when getting a haircut the other week. Two mothers with junior high aged daughters were talking about the kinds of clothing their girls were wearing. It fascinated me to hear how confused they were about what was actually going on. They were sure that the girls were only dressing like little hookers because of pressure society was putting on them. What they didn’t understand was the girls were dressing like hookers because society wasn’t putting any pressure on them. Female intra-sexual competition being what it is, this is what young women will devolve to if all restraints are lifted. Today’s crop of young women are perilously close to as Zeets would say* presenting like a red-assed chimp.

In the pale-turquoise ladies’ room, they congregate in front of the mirror, re-applying mascara and lip gloss, brushing their hair, straightening panty hose and gossiping: This one is “skanky,” that one is “really cute,” and so forth. Dressed in minidresses, perilously high heels, and glittery, dangling earrings, their eyes heavily shadowed in black-pearl and jade, they look like a flock of tropical birds. A few minutes later, they return to the dance floor, where they shake everything they’ve got under the party lights.

But for the most part, there isn’t all that much to shake. This particular group of party-goers consists of 12- and 13-year-old girls. Along with their male counterparts, they are celebrating the bat mitzvah of a classmate in a cushy East Coast suburb.

It is interesting that she herself makes the colorful bird analogy, but still manages to miss the underlying biology involved here. She also misses another glaring neon sign, which is the significance of the event she was witnessing. The description below the video explains that peer pressure is at the root of the issue:

Today’s teen and preteen girls are bombarded with images and products that tout the benefits of sexual attraction. But must we as parents, give in to their desire to “dress like everyone else?” asks author Jennifer Moses.

But what if it isn’t the culture driving the young girls this way? What if the young girls are driving the culture? This is extremely important, because parents, schools, pastors, etc. can’t begin to address the challenge while in denial of what the real drivers are. We don’t assume a teenage boy caught with a Playboy was only looking at it to keep up with the other boys. But we can’t bring ourselves to be honest about the sexuality of women in general, and young women in specific. This is especially damaging because young women and men tend not to fully understand the forces they are operating under themselves. Pretending that it is solely the work of some outside force only makes it more confusing and difficult for them to manage while robbing them of a sense of accountability.

Moses moves to the next part of her question, which is why do parents in general (and mothers in specific) actively help their daughters tart themselves up? Her friend offers the first hypothesis:

“It isn’t that different from when we were kids,” she said. “The girls in the sexy clothes are the fast girls. They’ll have Facebook pictures of themselves opening a bottle of Champagne, like Paris Hilton. And sometimes the moms and dads are out there contributing to it, shopping with them, throwing them parties at clubs. It’s almost like they’re saying, ‘Look how hot my daughter is.'” But why? “I think it’s a bonding thing,” she said. “It starts with the mommy-daughter manicure and goes on from there.”

Thinking about the underlying biological principles involved, this makes sense. When not competing against her daughter for sexual attention the mother would have every reason to assist her daughter in competing against other young women for that same attention. The author agrees that she experiences a thrill when seeing her daughter tarted up, especially since she herself is somewhat past the age to turn heads. But she proposes a different answer:

I have a different theory. It has to do with how conflicted my own generation of women is about our own past, when many of us behaved in ways that we now regret. A woman I know, with two mature daughters, said, “If I could do it again, I wouldn’t even have slept with my own husband before marriage. Sex is the most powerful thing there is, and our generation, what did we know?”

We are the first moms in history to have grown up with widely available birth control, the first who didn’t have to worry about getting knocked up. We were also the first not only to be free of old-fashioned fears about our reputations but actually pressured by our peers and the wider culture to find our true womanhood in the bedroom. Not all of us are former good-time girls now drowning in regret—I know women of my generation who waited until marriage—but that’s certainly the norm among my peers.

Wow. This makes sense as well. A bit further down she follows up with:

I wouldn’t want us to return to the age of the corset or even of the double standard, because a double standard that lets the promiscuous male off the hook while condemning his female counterpart is both stupid and destructive. If you’re the campus mattress, chances are that you need therapy more than you need condemnation.

Swirling around in there amongst the biological imperatives is the extreme investment these women have in the ideology which lead to their own bad choices. Even as they acknowledge the badness of their own past choices they can’t stop promoting them, because they so loudly promoted them in the past. Note who they are looking to protect. Preventing their daughter from needing therapy by not letting her become the campus mattress would protect their own daughters, but at the expense of acknowledging the harm their own feminist ideals have created. Given the choice, they will protect the young version of themselves instead of protecting their own young.

Still, I highly recommend reading the full column and even more watching the accompanying video. The level of recognition of the harm these women caused themselves and (by being unwilling to let go of feminist ideals) will cause their own daughters is astounding.

63 Responses to Raising Feral Females.

A cross-cultural multiple-source review of sexual repression finds:
“The view that men suppress female sexuality received hardly any support and is flatly contradicted by some findings. Instead, the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other’s sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage.”

A 13 year old boy can be more precise regarding his sexuality than most young women in their 20s; aka “the boner never lies”.
The next most important difference I would suggest is women’s need for conformity and fear of leaving a group; unless there is another group to join or the company of an alpha male or a beta male approved of by the group

In light of these arguments we can remove faulty conclusions regarding female sexuality.
Like “female sexuality is less reckless than male sexuality”.
But males are usually more reckless than females in every thing.

IOW, they don’t care about social sanctions as much as women do. This holds in many activities, even before sexual maturation. For example, girls might be said to be more self-disciplined in schools, or they can be seen as more willing to conform to wishes of their superiors.

Combining the two, you get female sexuality’s many characteristics. Words say something, actions mean something else. Preselection, more the other women like a man, more desirable he seems. A man who’d normally be attractive can become disgusting if he breaks the sanctions of the group-think, unless of course his attractiveness transcends them and can purge the older rules from her mind.

And this seems to spill over to men’s own nature. There is often talk of how women don’t have a moral compass at Roissy’s. Men can easily think of their own worst instincts, and their best instincts, yet women need some social sanction before they can feel comfortable even imagining that, let alone talking about it.

So anyone can get stumped when faced with the question of what would happen if women followed their base intincts?
What are their base instincts? What do women want? Do women know what they want? 🙂

“Given the choice, they will protect the young version of themselves instead of protecting their own young.Given the choice, they will protect the young version of themselves instead of protecting their own young.”

That’s why I think motherhood is another coming together of the group-think where men’s inputs are excluded. Intertwined with women’s concerns for their progenies is their own self-image of how good mothers they are in the eyes of other women.
The mom-daughter bonding is interesting one. Mothers would dress up their daughters for suitors before, so not much seems to have changed. Except that horrible patriarchal institution called marriage has gone down the drain.

I think fathers would be more prohibitive of their daughters slutty behaviors regardless of what they are told.
But Esther Vilar writes in her book “The Manipulated Man” that women don’t really care for what men think! And men unnecessarily beat themselves over when women say they do.
I think she means betas in there, but it’s an interesting insight.

Women when they speak of society in terms of restrictions, don’t mean men as much as the attitudes of other and usually older women. However men get the blame because they are straightforward about themselves, and thus their behavior seems to be the driver of female behavior instead of the other way round.
So feminism isn’t as much the removal of men’s criticism of women’s behavior, it’s removal of women’s own criticism of other women’s behavior.
Anything goes, so sayeth the herd’s current guidelines.

Anybody who bothers to look at the kinds of men women date would see that the so-called ‘Alpha’ male is exactly what they do NOT want. Feral here should actually read ‘predatory’. It’s the weaklings they want; because an inferior male reinforces their sense of female superiority.

What this article really points to is the cultural rot produced by feminist entitlement mentalities and outright social neurosis. Whatever biological instincts a typical American female is born with, our culture atrophies them before she reaches puberty. Women in non-feminist cultures behave normally: they see femininity as natural; a strong husband and motherhood as desirable. The bitches our culture produces see relationships as power struggles; and abortion and divorce as God-given rights. Obviously a so-called ‘Alpha’ male would never suit these ends.

If there were any truth to the myth that women want ‘Alpha’ types, then it should logically follow that men in Alpha-type positions (e.g. soldiers, policemen, firefighters, martial artists &c) would be the most sought-after husband/father material. As it is, in those professions, men are most frequently the victims of divorce. Louts, losers and bums by contrast knock up bitches and breed kids like rabbits.

Moses pulled a lot of punches on moms in that video interview, imho. All moms are doing their best for their daughters? Yeah. Right. And then, right at the end when she says she can’t stop her daughter from buying hookerwear with her babysitting money, but she won’t pay for it herself, darn it. Wow, there’s the Maginot Line, Jennifer, and brrrrr, brrrrr, beep, beep, here come the Germans, flanking.

I do think fashion and the media are big influences here, but once a trend sinks into a majority of kids, it will be reinforced by the kids themselves. But if you can’t stop your 11-year-old daughter from dressing indecently and provocatively, you have got a serious parenting problem and it ain’t fashion related. Pull her out and homeschool her. Send for pamphlets from convents. Relocate to Lancaster, PA. You are the adult.

The most interesting thing was her revelation that so many women she knew regretted their past sexual choices.

and the rest of the gang has weighed in to protest not letting girls dress like skanks. Because what’s at stake here is women not being able to do whatever they want whenever they want with full approval (and, probably, some taxpayer money). So redraw those red lips on there, McKenna, and push up the sewn in falsies – Mama’s gotta date.

Shortly after pointing towards that WSJ article, I had a scary thought along the lines of where you seem to be leading, Dalrock. Namae says something similar.

For many of these mothers, the broadcasting of their own daughters’ sexuality isn’t a reflection of overt feminist ideology and the desire to be rid of the “double standard” necessarily. It’s also not entirely the result intra-feminine sexual competition from the daughters’ own perspective. Rather, it can be seen as something much more sinister and calculated than that–yet done entirely unconsciously. It’s just what you describe: pure feral, genetic hedonism but done from the mother’s perspective.

It’s a scary thought: If a mother can initiate her own daughter’s hypergamous career starting at the highest level possible–say, with the high school alpha–then the mother’s own genes stand a greater chance of perpetuation. By contrast, keep her daughter cloistered or less tarted up in this sexually competitive world and the mother stands a greater chance of resigning her own genes to oblivion. Mind you the mother doesn’t want to go too far and make her own daughter so tarted up that the daughter appears the school or town slut. There’s perhaps a maternal anti-slut defense analogous to a woman’s own personal anti-slut defense which works to prevent that (and causes internal conflict). But somewhere in between the extremes of a daughter’s overt slutiness vs. sexual reclusiveness there’s perhaps a genetically optimal middle ground for a mother in terms of how far she pushes her daughter.

Now, some women are truly confused between the sad reality vs. promised hype of feminist sexual empowerment. They’ve become jaded (though many of these women lack the language or bravery to fully express it). This comes out in the WSJ article. However, for other women it could be that the internal conflict may not be exactly over whether their daughters’ active pursuit of a promiscuous career is good or bad. Rather, the internal conflict is over just how far to push or allow their daughters into that promiscuous career, given the sexual competition today, in order to yield a genetically optimum result.

(And then the mothers wash their hands and utter the hollow claim, “but I can’t control what clothes my daughter spends using her own baby sitting money.” Gimme a break!)

I’m guessing the genetic self-interest in tarting-out one’s daughter could be higher among single moms. It’s the lower risk option.

It’s a cold, scary theory but one that doesn’t appear entirely at odds with casual observation.

@Eric
“If there were any truth to the myth that women want ‘Alpha’ types, then it should logically follow that men in Alpha-type positions (e.g. soldiers, policemen, firefighters, martial artists &c) would be the most sought-after husband/father material. As it is, in those professions, men are most frequently the victims of divorce. Louts, losers and bums by contrast knock up bitches and breed kids like rabbits.”
You are wrong, from female perspective “Alpha” means strong and violent man. Something like chimps (inter-tribal warfare). Welcome back to jungle.

@Eric
Women DO want those men in Alpha type positions. Look at the fantasies and porn chicks watch and read about, its always firefighters, soldiers, cops…
You can run an experiment on this, Show a woman two pictures of the same guy, say they are twin brothers, and that one is a soldier, firefighter, cop, whatever and then say the other one does something in a cubicle. Then ask them which one they want to date. 8 times out of ten they will go for the more Alpha profession.

The REAL reasons that divorce happens with those Alpha professions is twofold. 1. The risky and uncertain nature of those lines of work place a lot of stress on a woman who ultimately wants relationship stability in terms of the providing for the kids. If I’m in Afghanistan getting shot at or rocketed, yes its Super Alpha when you come home and go, I killed the fuck out of some Taliban and you get hot sex, but the rest of the time there is uncertainty, instability, and stress. This pressure is more manifest in the military, but is present with firefighters running into burning buildings, and cops patrolling bad neighborhoods. Thus many women simply can’t take the pressure and give up. Its humorous in a way, because only certain women are capable of being army wives, its ironically the feminine ones capable of independence and strength that are able to do it, while the feminists, and girls who can’t take care of themselves that can’t.
The second reason is the Alpha at work, Beta at home syndrome. I’ve seen, met, and worked with a ton of guys, that were like that. Real Alpha at work, then when their woman opens her mouth, they become a HUGE beta. There are a lot of those in those Alpha professions too. Partly because they never learn how to be a man or they buy the crap feminists feed them.
Thus between the stress of those jobs on stability and beta at home syndrome, you see those divorce rates.

This is a problem I’m worrying about now, as the father of 3 girls… I want them to be pretty and know about sex and not afraid of their sexuality, but not slutty or tarty. I want them to be good, in the world without being of the world. I’m not sure how to proceed…

dan my man, you can’t have it both ways guy! it doesn’t work that way. and what is all this “afraid of their sexuality” business everyone always mentions? what does that even mean. danny, when one’s sexuality f’s up society then..well..you know what needs to be done. civilization, or self-knowing touchy/feely girly nonsense. take your pick dad.

In all honesty the best way is to go the religious route. In the 20 or so years since I was in my early 20s myself, the women I have met who were not behaving at some point in that way were either unattractive/couldn’t-pull-it-off or religious. The reason is that the programming to act in such a way is so overwhelmingly strong that unless it meets another very strong force, it prevails. The two strongest forces are (1) not being able to follow the programming because you can’t pull it off anyway and (2) not being willing to follow the programming because of your own moral programming, which trumps it.

The women who are neither in category (1) not category (2) are behaving in a more feral way, generally. Now we need to be clear as to what that means. Not all of such women are engaging in casual sex all the time. It’s more common, in my experience, that women bounce between (a) relationships and (b) casual sex when they are not in a relationship, than a steady diet of either, at least in the 20s. But the “comfortable with their sexuality” types who are not religious or unattractive are also generally unchaste, period. It’s just how things are these days.

How pathetic that Jennifer Rosen ends the video by saying “I won’t use my American Express card to buy her something I think is incredibly slutty looking, but I can’t stop her from using her babysitting money to do that.”

Uhhh, yes you can can stop her, if you had any backbone woman. Or if you husband did. It’s called taking it away and ripping it up. If necessary grounding her.

If there were any truth to the myth that women want ‘Alpha’ types, then it should logically follow that men in Alpha-type positions (e.g. soldiers, policemen, firefighters, martial artists &c) would be the most sought-after husband/father material.

Moses pulled a lot of punches on moms in that video interview, imho. All moms are doing their best for their daughters? Yeah. Right. And then, right at the end when she says she can’t stop her daughter from buying hookerwear with her babysitting money, but she won’t pay for it herself, darn it. Wow, there’s the Maginot Line, Jennifer, and brrrrr, brrrrr, beep, beep, here come the Germans, flanking.

Totally agree. You’re always so full of the kinds of common sense that aren’t so common anymore, in this permissive, feminist age.

@Dan in PhillyThis is a problem I’m worrying about now, as the father of 3 girls… I want them to be pretty and know about sex and not afraid of their sexuality, but not slutty or tarty. I want them to be good, in the world without being of the world. I’m not sure how to proceed…

Brendan shared some good thoughts here, although I would be careful not to overly trust the church either. Your daughters should expect to encounter a significant number of girls the adults think are on the right path but whose peers know better.

My other thought is to work on basic things like manners, self control, etc. Feminists have assaulted this as much if not more than sexual mores, and I think there is a connection. Also, my experience has been that people with self control and manners aren’t comfortable around those who lack them. This would seem to pay dividends in who they choose for their peer group after they leave the house.

On their views of sex, I don’t think teaching self control has to mean teaching that sex in itself is bad. I don’t recall if you are married, but if so I think your wife can really help here.

With all of this being said, feminism really has made a mess out of our culture, which makes your job (and mine) much more difficult than it should be.

I remember a conversation with a work colleague a few years ago. His daughter was in her early teens –I’m thinking 14ish — at the time. He told us that she came walking down the stairs in the house on her way out to go out with her friends “looking like a hooker” (his words). He told us that he just told her to go upstairs and change her clothes because she looked like a hooker, and she wasn’t leaving the house dressed like that. His wife apparently approved, according to him.

This colleague is no right-wing Christian patriarch. He’ s a fairly moderately liberal, secular Jew. But he and his wife put their collective feet down.

There’s really no need to be permissive. I expect that the reasons why parents are permissive mostly have to do with (1) conflicted views about their own past behavior (i.e., the “who am I to tell her what to do when I did X when I was her age” syndrome) and (2) wanting to be pals with the daughter instead of being a parent. (there’s a rather big difference, and I see many parents of both sexes opting for the pals relationship than the parental one — which is very harmful because the kids want/need parents, not pals who are 20 years older than they are). A related reason in *some* cases is a conflict between mom and dad about what is appropriate, but I think that’s only a minority of cases, really.

Dalrock:My other thought is to work on basic things like manners, self control, etc. Feminists have assaulted this as much if not more than sexual mores, and I think there is a connection. Also, my experience has been that people with self control and manners aren’t comfortable around those who lack them. This would seem to pay dividends in who they choose for their peer group after they leave the house.

It’s not just feminists, it is the whole “do your own thing” notion that too many Boomers swallowed in the 70’s. Being a jerk isn’t “keeping it real”, nor is it what a “strong, independent woman” does, either: it’s being a jerk.

Basic politeness, basic manners, basic human decency are all beta traits now. Being a jerk, rude, and even cruel are alpha traits; 90 seconds of viewing “Jersey Shore” will make that point quite clear. However, let us not forget, these are beta/alpha traits to losers. The fact that some women have, thanks to Affirmative Action, managed to parlay their obnoxiousness into several rungs of a corporate or government ladder does not change that underlying loserdom involved.

It is true that people, even children as young as 8, who have been taught some basic manners and politeness find crude fools to be not interesting. I’ve seen it myself, and even remember it from my own childhood. It makes parts of school pretty lonely, because there are a lot of crude fools. However, it makes young adulthood better.

What we have in the WSJ article is multigenerational failure to teach self control beyond a very rudimentary level. Back to “do your own thing” and “how dare you oppress me by not letting me do my own thing!” again. It’s ironic in a way, the amount of self control required to put on all that war paint every morning (there’s easily an hour involved) could be put to better use in controlling behavior.

PS: the notion of mothers assisting their daughters in slutting around, but not slutting too much, as a strategy for reproductive success is very interesting and bears more discussion and thought.

Eric said: “If there were any truth to the myth that women want ‘Alpha’ types, then it should logically follow that men in Alpha-type positions (e.g. soldiers, policemen, firefighters, martial artists &c) would be the most sought-after husband/father material. As it is, in those professions, men are most frequently the victims of divorce. Louts, losers and bums by contrast knock up bitches and breed kids like rabbits.”

I’m a soldier. My wife just divorced me (and I’m not Beta-at-home either) and got pumped-and-dumped by some clod she pines after before it was even final. Resposibility is for Beta losers (like John Wayne or one of his characters) but dirtbags chart their own path beholden to no one, the true Alphas! (Or course, so are marauding Huns, Somali pirates and various armed robbers and rapistsm, but who’s counting.) Civilization sucks, apparently.

dan my man, you can’t have it both ways guy! it doesn’t work that way. and what is all this “afraid of their sexuality” business everyone always mentions? what does that even mean. danny, when one’s sexuality f’s up society then..well..you know what needs to be done. civilization, or self-knowing touchy/feely girly nonsense. take your pick dad.

Nodal, the fact is sex feels good. I don’t want any of my kids, male or female, to feel ashamed about this. I do want them to be rational about it. This (mostly religious) emphasis AGAINST masturbation is so stupid! If you want to keep the kids from f*cking each other, they have to address their base sexual needs somehow — and do not pretend they don’t have them. Keep it in hand (ahem) until you can make a good choice based on more than lust. That’s called self-knowing (oh, the puns) and it ain’t girly nonsense! But wow are people embarrassed about it. Boggles the mind.

I want my daughter to dress like a strong woman who is confident with her body, so it isn’t like I want her to feel long sleeves and long heavy pants are required at all times.
Nevertheless, slutty clothes are like porn. You know it when you see it. I’m not going to see it on my daughter.

Buying clothes for her as a baby was painful enough with all the “princess” clothes though there were tasteful options if you looked (and looked). We got an outfit with JUICY across the butt and it was going back. That was awkward but I had to set limits early. With other adults!

A parenting goal of mine is that my kids look down on popular culture, or at least look away at something better. Preferably science, math or something like that. The boys, once they are geeky enough, should be set but girls apparently can un-geek in middle school so I’m keeping a close watch.

Brendan and Anon there have it right. Limits and basic manners. Otherwise you have feral CHILDREN (and that’s the boys as well as the girls).

fair enough but it is not and never has originated with religion. this fear of religion has been induced into the populace by the religion sex uber alles. you too cannot have it both ways. any guilt or shame people feel comes from within, not without. religion is a popular scapegoat that’s all. you want your kid to look down on popculture while being ‘confident with her body’? that idea comes from popculture and in practice means being a catty shrew. they are fighting you mac. it’s a fight guy, time to put your shoulders up.

Doug;
You’re a doofus. You manginas should encourage the MRM, since the more of us who give up on American women, the less competition you guys have to impress the fat, 50- somethings on Match.com with your alpha-studliness LOL.

Besides the violent thugs, women also go for limp-wristed metrosexuals, latent- homosexual male celebrities, and other types thought of as ‘betas’. It’s weakness that appeals to women educated under feminist philosophy and female supramacy.

Martial arts teaches that violent thug-types are only superficially strong to cover their weak characters. It’s the character-weakness, not the superficial strength they project that attract these women.

The same is true about the professions we mentioned. Men in those professions aren’t dumped because of stress; they’re dumped because the bitches get off on emasculating a genuinely strong male. After all, they willingly tolerate much greater stress from the abusers, bums, and criminals they seek out.

I do think women have turned feral- or a good number of them have. Feminism has removed a lot of the old rules- rules that kept the unrestrained ID in check. Now that those rules are gone, women can participate in their own personal Lord of the Flies.

I leave you with my favorite quote from a book: “The United States needs some theology and geometry, some taste and decency. I suspect that we are teetering on the edge of the abyss.”

To what degree is alpha-chasing by early-teen girls REALLY about sexual desire, as opposed to status-seeking? From what I’ve read & been told, the typical 14-year-old girl has a sex drive much lower than either a boy of the same age or than she’ll have herself when she’s a few years older. Plus, the kind of sexual activities typically engaged in by couples that age tend not to be very satisfying for the female partner. So I’m guessing it’s usually more about showing off for the other girlz (“look who I caught”–like someone might enjoy fishing even though he doesn’t particularly like fish) than about raging hormones.

[D: I wonder if that isn’t a distinction without a difference. Isn’t that still be a part of a young woman’s sexual instinct?]

Eric said: “Martial arts teaches that violent thug-types are only superficially strong to cover their weak characters. It’s the character-weakness, not the superficial strength they project that attract these women.”

They’re arousing and insecure enough to be “changed” by the women. I got mine angry but wouldn’t be changed by her. I “don’t need” her, she complained. (She couldn’t change the jerk she got pumped-‘n-dumped by either– he only needed her for one thing.) Don’t want her skanky ass back either. She can have multiple cats.

Anyway, remember the opening scene of Mad Max with the Night Rider being chased by the MFP? Max (played by a pre-craziness Mel Gibson) is hard but the Night Rider is just insecure, to illustrate the point on video.

I think ‘changing’ or ‘fixing’ men is more of a rationalization that women employ when they choose men who are so obviously beneath them. It wouldn’t be at all difficult for them to find a man who doesn’t need ‘changing’: and also, men’s welfare or feelings are about the last thing women are concerned with.

Instead, they choose such men because it enables them to play the ‘giving, unselfish, loving victim’ to the ‘evil man’; and hearing from everybody how ‘she’s too good for him’ &c. As is true with most relationship choices, it’s all about boosting the overweening female ego and reinforcing her sense of superiority over men.

You’ll notice too that a lot of women that age are hardly impressed by ‘alpha’ types either. The latent-homosexual male models in their magazines and effeminate actors and singers appeal to them mostly.

I think you’re right, though, it has little to do with sexuality, and more about showing off to their friends. I tend to doubt, given the amount of anti-male propaganda young women are steeped in, that they really feel much sexual attraction to men at all.

Eric says: “You’ll notice too that a lot of women that age are hardly impressed by ‘alpha’ types either. The latent-homosexual male models in their magazines and effeminate actors and singers appeal to them mostly.”

Eric said: “I think ‘changing’ or ‘fixing’ men is more of a rationalization that women employ when they choose men who are so obviously beneath them. It wouldn’t be at all difficult for them to find a man who doesn’t need ‘changing’: and also, men’s welfare or feelings are about the last thing women are concerned with.”

Either way, they want a doormat that arouses them (sort of a living Hitachi Magic Wand, if you will).

The gentle blogger and his wife are not only insane, but are stupid as well.

“Alpha professions” aren’t soldiers and the like–they’re paid well under what the cubicle monkeys make in the modern American economy. Compare a cop’s salary to a state secretary when the pay classification increases for the one but not the other. My brother, who has been on three tours abroad as a tank commander, makes less than the five-year secretaries at my state alma mater.

Say what you like about bad parents. Most of the bad parents out there think they are the best parents precisely because of their privileged perspective which they have wished–rather than tried–themselves into being. Their kids wear “hookerwear.” We see it in the South daily, though Dalrock might make reservations for the region.

I’ve never been more proud of getting a proper education and reading Dr. Marx before reading this blog. There is a balance between restricting your kids to the point they think you’re an asshole, reach 18, and do whatever. There is another between allowing them freedom and knowing they will make mistakes.

Good luck with your whole project, man. You’ll need it, as have many others with your worldview in the past.

No idea what the above comment is about but re-reading Dalrock’s essay it rather supports my unpopular view concerning Rotherham: those girls aren’t going with the Muslims because they are being forced against their will or enticed to do so by techniques previously unknown to western man; they are going with the Muslims because no one is there to stop them following their basest sexual instincts. The Fathers in Rotherham having been cut off at the knee by the State from exercising any control over their daughters.

Years ago a friend of mine was the A & R man (for the music) on a somewhat notorious T.V. show for children entitled Mini-pops (I think some of it is on Youtube): what happened was that the children sang the latest songs and imitated the singers thereof having dressed themselves up to look like Kylie, Madge Cyndi or as the case may have been. My friend said that the problem wasn’t getting them to strut their stuff. The problem was that they were unstoppable – completely over the top.